Hotrod 180 asked a question on my Skywagon resto thread that I thought would be good info to answer as well as spark some good discussion... First, by no means am I a prop expert and am not representing myself as such so keep the hounds in the kennel.... Just sharing my own findings.

"Don't mean to be crass, but I'm curious as to the cost difference between a two-blade MT like you got and a comparable 88" 2-blade McCauley? I have no plans to re-prop my new-to-me 53 model, but it's fun to daydream about what I'll do when overhaul time comes."

I assume Hotrod you are asking about the Blackmac? If so, I looked at both props for my wagon and like most of us, did as much "research" on the web as possible. There is not very much info to be found, and what you do find is pretty much anecdotal.

I had met John from Flight Resources a time or two in person as well as spoken to Larry for the sales skinny, but probably the absolute best info I got was from Steve Knopp one year at the Airman's show. When I probed, he seemed more interested in just helping than selling, and I took his feedback to heart. He suggested that the MT was the winner when looking at the two but that the difference was going to be hard to tell. I also had a feeling that I was not a good enough pilot to take advantage of the difference, so the choice was going to come down to other things.

As I have a perfectly good (and low time) 82" prop on the front, (if anyone needs a nice prop hint hint.....) I could not justify the expense on performance alone... The real reason I am swapping out the prop (and the only reason I went with the MT) is the weight. For sure the performance is going to be awesome, but as far as weight savings goes, hands down the MT is the winner.

So... What about cost? For the 2 blade MT, the retail price for the composite prop and carbon spinner run $12.5k. The stated weight in the paperwork for both prop and spinner are 46lbs. TBO is 1800hrs.

For the 2 blade Blackmac, the retail price for the STC and prop (without spinner) is $8755.00. You will then also have to buy a spinner which will cost you around $3300.00. NET NET the Blackmac would run you round $12k. The stated weight in the paperwork for the Blackmac (no spinner) is 59 lbs. Add perhaps another 7-10 for the spinner and you are getting close to 70. TBO is 2400hrs.

For performance, the two are almost equal. For value, the McCauley has a much longer TBO. As far as price is concerned, the two are more or less the same cost... As far as weight is concerned, the Flight Resources sales material claim I should see a savings of 18lbs over the 82" McCauley 2A34C20390D.

http://www.flight-resource.com/PTD/Cessna180-182.pdf

There is also a longevity component and "field repair-ability" question. I can not speak to this personally, but some who operate in the rough seem to feel that the metal prop is the better choice. Taj Shoemaker writes about this in his great 180 article here: https://www.backcountrypilot.org/features/category/featured-bush-planes/a-working-skywagon-kodiak-alaska

In my case, since I have gutted the airplane, the CG on my Skywagon is right up against the forward envelope. Im legal to fly, but empty I am full stop nose up trim on landing and have found that she likes it better with heavy stuff aft.

With the prop on the Skywagon at -45" of arm, the MT is the obvious solution. If I can truly save 30 on the nose, I will be able to walk the CG right into the sweet spot... And for sure, the added perf upgrade hopefully will add a nice smile to the TO roll.

Anyway, most of us have seen his info, but if not, PPonk has some good info as well as an interesting youtube video. Kevin Quinn here on BCP also has some great first hand experience in testing the 3 blade MT vs McCauley that you can search for.

If you havent seen this, here is a nice vid that Steve Knopp shot comparing the MT, the McCauley 86" 401, and the Hartz.

Pretty cool video, and pretty impressive performance! I notice that the tricycle gear may have an advantage over a taildragger in that the tail doesn't need to come up before rotating hard, for a rapid increase in AOA.
I'm based about 20 miles from Knopp's home field, Camano Island 13W. You can't see it on the video, but there is a powerline running along the road which crosses the approach end of 34 (which he's using in the video). It goes underground where it crosses the end of the strip, but you can't see that too readily from the air. That caused some trepidation the first time I went in there years ago-- so much, in fact, that I stayed high "just in case" & landed pretty long. Not a good thing, as the strip is only 1700' long, and slopes downhill pretty severely as you get about 2/3 of the way down toward the north end. I had to smooth out some pucker marks in the upholstery that day!

If by McCauley Blackmac, you mean the 2A34C203, commonly referred to as the C203, it is included on the 180G and 180H Type Certificate Data (TCD) sheet and does not require a STC for installation. If installed with an O470 R engine nothing else required, if installed with an O470 L engine which is also legal on the 180G and 180H in addition to the O470 R engine Cessna service kit SK180-45 (82 inch) or -46 (88 inch) is required per the TCD. i would expect you to find an increase in takeoff performance just from the difference in thrust between a 82 inch and a 88 inch prop, otherwise Cessna would not have certified a 88 inch prop for the seaplane. Keep in mind that the McCauley 88 inch prop is approved for land plane use. I am not questioning your choice, it is good to have choices. I am sure that you will be happy with your choice of the MT prop, though I have no experience with one and am happy with the 88 inch C203 i purchased used for my 180H project. Just trying to keep the information accurate for others researching this choice.

Tim

bigrenna wrote:....I assume Hotrod you are asking about the Blackmac? .....

I just took a quick look at the McCauley website and it's not real apparent just which prop is the "Black Mac", or if they maybe use that term for all their props. I gotta admit it sounds real catchy, even f it doesn't necessarily mean anything special.

.

bigrenna wrote: If I can truly save 30 on the nose, I will be able to walk the CG right into the sweet spot... And for sure, the added perf upgrade hopefully will add a nice smile to the TO roll.

...THIS...


this is what most 180's that aren't piggish heavy need to make them really shine... CG work. I ran a two bladed MT on my 180 for a year and a couple hundred hours, it was hands down the sweetest flying combination I've had on it... undoubtedly better feel and performance than most supercubs in a skywagon sized airframe! Unfortunately it's just not enough prop for a healthy O-520 or bigger... but the three blade MT with it's even better TBO is the next best thing. FWIW if I ever run an O-470 powered C180 again it will have a 2 blade MT on it...

Take care, Rob

bat443 wrote:If by McCauley Blackmac, you mean the 2A34C203, commonly referred to as the C203, it is included on the 180G and 180H Type Certificate Data (TCD) sheet and does not require a STC for installation. If installed with an O470 R engine nothing else required, if installed with an O470 L engine which is also legal on the 180G and 180H in addition to the O470 R engine Cessna service kit SK180-45 (82 inch) or -46 (88 inch) is required per the TCD. i would expect you to find an increase in takeoff performance just from the difference in thrust between a 82 inch and a 88 inch prop, otherwise Cessna would not have certified a 88 inch prop for the seaplane. Keep in mind that the McCauley 88 inch prop is approved for land plane use. I am not questioning your choice, it is good to have choices. I am sure that you will be happy with your choice of the MT prop, though I have no experience with one and am happy with the 88 inch C203 i purchased used for my 180H project. Just trying to keep the information accurate for others researching this choice.

Tim

The original spinner from the threaded series propeller is reused also. This is a huge savings for those still saving for the Mt or who just prefer metal. The 203's are also oil filled internally now, (C after the 203 in the model #) providing continuous lubrication of the bearing races. If you maintain the leading edges on your prop it will run for a long time.

Richard

richpiney wrote:..........The original spinner from the threaded series propeller is reused also. This is a huge savings for those still saving for the Mt or who just prefer metal.....

Besides cost savings, it keeps the cool old-school look of the big spinner dome. I know a guy who upgraded to an R engine from a J in his 55 180-- he upgraded the prop too and had to go with one of those pointy spinners that looks like Madonna's bra. Very unappealing.

BTW... when I was talking to John and Larry about buying the MT prop, Larry mentioned they have a used 2 blade MT and spinner "as removed" for sale. Prop has 231hrs on it and was pulled to upgrade to a 3 blade. I decided on new, but they offered it at a really compelling price. Might be a good deal for someone who has been really wanting an MT but can't justify new.

hotrod180 wrote:....one of those pointy spinners that looks like Madonna's bra. Very unappealing.

Well that's purely preference, of course

I'm quite fond of my "longnose". I think it flows better with the lines of the cowl while giving it a sleeker look...especially the earlier models where the forward cowling isn't so blunt.

Again, preference. Carry on...

glacier wrote: My buddy went from a 82 inch to the C203 88 inch on his early model 180 with O-470j engine. Night and day performance according to him, made a whole different plane out of it....

My airplane has the C203 82-incher on it now, the 88" C203 is what I'd be inclined to upgrade to. I'm guessing that I could use the same hub, and same spinner of course, and just have to buy the longer blades?

Doesn't the Pponk test results show the C203 86" is just as good as the 88" but make less noise?

No C203 data on the pponk site only C58 86" and C66 88". Only a 3 pound of thrust advantage to the 88". I wonder what the effect of density altitude has on static thrust? They do compare the 3 blade C401 86" and 88" and find them equal. New blades for the C58 or C66 are not available, Long used C58 and C66 blades are nearly impossible to find as the come off float planes, fewer were produced and do to float use are often unairworthy do to wear beyond limits from water spray erosion. The longest used C58 would be 86" and the C66 would be 88", It would be nice if you could use a C203 but they have never been approved. I looked at the STC paper work for my buddies pponk on his 180 last week and even the C58 or C66 requires a field approval, though they are approved on the 182. From my perspective one of the problems with the pponk 520 conversion is that it requires a change to a 3 blade to make use of the extra power. By the time you buy a crank to replace the O470 R crank and trade to a new 3 blade either a C401 or the 3 blade MT plus the difference in cylinder price plus the STC you are looking at 15 to 20 thousand. My personal choice is to put that money into an engine for another of my projects. Power is king though and if I thought I needed the power I would spend the bucks and get a pponk and a 86" C401.

Tim

I have a 2 blade MT in my 182, I removed a Gartzell so never flew a Mc Cauley.
Lets say they both make the same power.
Advantages I like with the MT
16 pounds lighter on the nose
Smooth, feels like a brand new plane, no vibration at all.
Instant power, great when windy , turbulent landings.
And my favorite it is , it feels like an airbrake when full pitch and trying to land at a short strip, you can do super steep approaches and it will not gain any speed, No way I could do this with my Hartzell
Plus looks cool

Probably not a concern to almost everyone here but how does a MT prop do on a plane that isn't hangared? Seems like just a bad idea with it being a wood core.

The wood composite core is forever sealed from elements with several layers of Kevlar. The MT prop is so resistant to water erosion it is the only prop that is now used on the big Russian flying boats and has become a popular upgrade for similar flying boats on this side of the planet. You should see the vids of these beasts taking off with full loads in rough seas... more like a boat propeller than airplane prop
John

I love that pointed spinner… My 205 needs one instead of the blunt nose

I would rather have an MT propeller and governor for any type of flying that I do. MT is so vastly superior to the "American" props that it has become non relevant comparing them.

Just thought I'd add my experience.

My 53 180 came with a 82" C66 on it, and after flying it at high DA several times with two growing preteen kids and all of our camping gear I was not extremely pleased with its performance. I don't like digging seat cushion out of my posterior. Neither the kids nor I are shedding meaningful pounds anytime soon, regardless of the good intentions on my part. Looking for economical performance gains, I found that the 88" C203 I bought used gave a substantial reduction in liftoff distance and speed, especially when coupled with the higher AOA a borrowed set of 8.50x10's provided (thanks Kevin!). I was also pleasantly surprised to find that the C203 in an 88" length is actually lighter than the C66 in 82". I weighed both on a scale to verify. The same bullet nose spinner and backplate worked fine with either prop.

One thing I've found is that it's really hard to compare performance at sea level and standard conditions. All of these props with 230 hp twisting them at sea level pull hard. When the air gets thinner, and the payload increases, it seems the differences become more apparent.

While the 88" provides a great benefit that I could probably live with, I've always been impressed by the additional performance the Pponk provides flying heavy in and out of high DA. While the liftoff distance and speed with the 88" prop is definitely shorter/lower, more horsepower to get the load climbing faster out of ground effect is desirable for me. My engine is well seasoned, having rolled out of the Continental factory 36 years ago and is past the TBO hours. It is also a O470L that was field approved, so the Pponk conversion is as easy as it gets. After playing "cylinder roulette" every annual, and having my oil consumption increase this past summer to a quart every hour and a half or so, it was time to pull it and send it up to Steve to have him work his magic. Losing the #3 cylinder at the end of the last flight before annual sealed the deal. Figuring it was my one chance to upgrade, I pulled the trigger on a 3 blade 83" MT to make the most of the additional horsepower while not adding additional weight up front.

I thought really long and hard about a new MT 2 blade when I bought the 88" prop, especially since the "published" performance numbers didn't seem all that different. Rob's "real world" experience with the 2 blade vs. 3 blade MT mated to a Pponk convinced me I'd be better off to hold out and just wait to buy the 3 blade once I upgraded...... The 2 blade is likely a very good selection for the stock O470, the 88" prop definitely knocked 4 or 5 knots off my cruise speed that wouldn't have been sacrificed with the MT.

So, I'm now the proud owner of three 180 props. If anyone is looking for a deal on the 82" C66 or 88" C203, they're available. I also have a nice bullet nose spinner and backplate too. I hung onto the 82" C66 just in case I couldn't swing both the Pponk conversion and the new prop at the same time, but turns out the C66 is only approved for the Pponk STC on the 182, not the 180. Go figure. It just made the decision to do it all in one fell swoop that much easier.

Sorry for the rambling, but sitting around waiting for your engine to get back is no fun! Glad BCP is here.....It's good to have something to keep me occupied until I'm back in the air.

Flynengr

.